SamRebel35
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2009
- Messages
- 15,785
- Likes
- 12,768
Oregon's Gimmick Offense Should Put Us On Notice
- Thread starter rcvol
- Start date
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2009
- Messages
- 87,219
- Likes
- 26,286
butchna
Sit down and tell me all about it...way over there
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2013
- Messages
- 106,293
- Likes
- 221,957
44?...jk...they're grasping for straws and it's draining...but that's rcvol's modus operandi...pick pick pick...and try to get a reaction...Patrick isn't always this way...I used to address every rcvol post because he ISN'T A VOL FAN...but implies that he is...I think he started this thread because he stopped getting reaction to his hit and runs...it worked huh? :blink:
How have they fared since the departure of Cam??? Just like Fla without Tebow etc..etc etc .
I guess it's really just personal preference--and no one would complain about having all of that Oregon speed and winning 10-11 games each year .
But--I personally would rather have a team BUILT on the fundamentals like Bama, LSU, Stanford, etc
Stanford controlled the ball for 42 minutes tonight--42 out of 60 minutes and Oregon's up-tempo O scored 6 points against those teams who line up and play solid, OLD-SCHOOL smash-mouth football
I believe CBJ is our guy--but it's gonna take an SEC championship to get me to buy into this up-tempo crap as THE ANSWER .No--forget that--I NEVER will believe that tempo will RULE over SMASHMOUTH!
Football in the SEC is still a LOS league--Oregon has been the poster-child for the up-tempo, "speed kills", "wear the defense out" style of 21st century FB--and it kept them on the field for 18 minutes tonight.
And--look at that Stanford OL--now that's what I had hoped our OL would look like against the quacks--
Wezcoast
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2009
- Messages
- 3,977
- Likes
- 3,486
I wouldn't stick a fork in us yet--and they did suffer a 14 point beat down running that up-tempo offense against that big, physical team named LSU earlier this year--WHICH is the exact point I was making. Up-tempo, spread teams don't do well against the big, physical, fundamental Old School teams. And the Barn still has to play UGA and the Bammites.
IF you read the rest of my prior post--I did state that it's a matter of personal preference--UNTIL the spread meets the BULLIES who can kick them in the teeth and make 'em like it ..
And--Auburn's NC was more a factor of CAM than it was the "system." Just how often does a Cam or Tebow come along??? :salute:
Either way--no hostility here--just making conversation...
volfaninutah
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2011
- Messages
- 740
- Likes
- 323
Mike how could you say that Oregon has no fundamentals? They have speed, they block on the line, they block downfield... all of them the receivers all block, that's how they roll up 600 yds each week. They tackle well. They aren't big on defense. It does seem now that Stanford has their number. THey just seem to match up well and the they also execute. That is coaching. Stanford sees Oregon every year. So they get a game plan that seems to work, and plug people in that can make it happen. They do seem to have the formula for the Ducks right now.Wish it could have been us... but maybe later down the road.:good!:
Ulysees E. McGill
This season is for you Sweets
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2009
- Messages
- 55,110
- Likes
- 145,642
Just a question for all you road scholars. How did our smashmouth "We are going to be Tennessee" teams do against the "Finesse" gimmicky offenses Spurrier ran? I don't remember that working out so well, even with similar across the board talent most years. (The road scholars reference is a pick at dumarse of the night RC from a discourse we had earlier)
Did you really watch tonight's game against Oregon? And I NEVER said that Oregon lacks fundamentals But I did insinuate that Oregon's approach is fundamentally DIFFERENT than the Stanford's, Bamma's, and LSU's of College Football.
And--you make every one of my points for me almost to the point where I don't have to say much if you actually watched tonight's game!
Oregon DIDN'T match up well anywhere on the field tonight against Stanford.
1. They didn't block well
2. They didn't hold onto the football
3. They didn't tackle Stanford's RBs
4. They didn't protect their QB
5. They had 60+ yards RUSHING
6. They had the ball only for 18 minutes then entire game because they had a catastrophic breakdown in football fundamentals because they couldn't match Stanford's PHYSICALITY!
Therefore--Oregon's CORE fundamental concerning their FB team IS SPEED--and their "fundamentally sound" and fast offense was only able to put 6 points on the board.
Please let these FACTS sink in for just a moment.
Oregon is THE BEST in the land at running the up-tempo, speed offense. NO ONE is better at it than them--and they ALWAYS lose to those teams who can match their speed, and play a more traditional, "I'm gonna run over you" type of teams.
If tonight's Stanford game doesn't prove it to you--nothing ever will. :salute:
BigOrangeTrain
Morior Invictus
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2013
- Messages
- 78,983
- Likes
- 90,908
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2009
- Messages
- 87,219
- Likes
- 26,286
BigOrangeTrain
Morior Invictus
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2013
- Messages
- 78,983
- Likes
- 90,908
Wezcoast
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2009
- Messages
- 3,977
- Likes
- 3,486
A lot of things have to come into alignment for a team to be consistently good, but I think we could be better than Oregon with some good classes. They got slapped around because of poor execution on offense and both lines being physically violated. After all that they still had a legit chance to come back and win it with just a few minutes of offense.
Well, my friend--I reject your premise that Spurrier ran a "Finesse" style of offense. He might have thrown the ball around, but he ALWAYS went back to running the ball to win. Don't you remember the statistics that were shown to demonstrate that the winner of the TN-Fla game always won the "yards rushing" category?
Also, check the record of those games and you'll find out that we lost the turnover battle by over a 3-1 margin. I remember one game in Knoxville where we had at least 3 turnovers in the first Qtr--and almost all were within our own 40 yd line.
I think Fla beat us 24-0 in 1994 by physically dominating us Same thing happened in the 1996 game in the second half--turnovers, and we got our butts whipped .Same for 1997 while Jamal Lewis sat on the sidelines while Spurrier's offense gave us a physical beat-down...
My point is--Finesse teams win with a philosophy that isn't based on winning the physical battle on the Line of Scrimmage--they win with speed, timing, deceptive schemes, and misdirection instead of lining up and whooping' dat azz .
Spurrier's mentality has always been to line up and whoop dat azz .
Finess teams--to my way of thinking--are teams like Hal Mumme's Kentucky, Oregon, Texas Tech, Baylor, aTm, Wash. State, etc..etc
I personally don't believe in CBJ's offensive philosophy that tempo drives offensive production. However, I also don't think CBJ embraces a "Finesse" type of philosophy as defined above.
:salute:
I get you--but disagree that ANYONE will ever run that tempo offense BETTER than Oregon
We disagree about their "poor execution." They were not able to execute BECAUSE they were being physically slapped around and busted in the teeth--and Mariota was running for his life all night. Same on their defense---their front 7 were manhandled--but did manage to bow up enough to only surrender FGs...
Their legit chance to win was hinged on a blocked FG and the prayer of recovering 2 onside kicks .It doesn't change the fact that they were physically DOMINATED all night
What it does prove is that Stanford got lackadaisical and thought that kicking a FG is automatic and didn't block one guy. Stanford also didn't press in for TDs and was content to settle for 2nd half FGs because their D was stopping Oregon's offense--and it ALMOST caught up with them
If I were a Stanford fan--I would have been miffed at some of their 3rd down play-calling in the 2nd half. I NEVER have said that Oregon wasn't a good team--and they're extremely dangerous---even when down by 2 scores. Stanford got complacent and willing to settle for FGs when 1 TD would have put the game out of reach at 30-7 .
And do remember that it took a blocked FG, a 4th down pass, and an onside kick recovery to even get the game to the final score ..The bootleg for Stanford was open all night--and they finally ran it to run out the clock--I was wondering why they didn't run it earlier to move the chains and get a TD
Any way you want to look at it--it's in the history books as ANOTHER OREGON loss to a better, more physical, traditional style of FB team
I'm just trying to present the reasons I see things the way I do--not asking or demanding that you see it my way.
Good night and GO VOLS! :salute:
FUNNEEEEE!
lol:lol:lol:lol:lol::crazy:Oregon had the ball for 18 out of 60 minutes
Oregon rushed for less than 70 total yards (when their average was >300 ypg)
Oregon did turn the ball over--but not willingly--it was because their ball-carriers were being HIT!
Oregon scored only 13 points on offense all night when they average over 50...
Now--you wanna please try again with that crap? Did you even watch the same game as I did??? Just who was it stopping them if it wasn't Stanford's defense?
And, do you think Stanford would have played so conservatively on offense in the 2nd half if Oregon would have scored a TD sooner? :salute:
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2009
- Messages
- 87,219
- Likes
- 26,286
FUNNEEEEE!
Oregon had the ball for 18 out of 60 minutes
Oregon rushed for less than 70 total yards (when their average was >300 ypg)
Oregon did turn the ball over--but not willingly--it was because their ball-carriers were being HIT!
Oregon scored only 6 points on offense all night
Now--you wanna please try again with that crap? Did you even watch the same game as I did??? Just who was it stopping them if it wasn't Stanford's defense?
And, do you think Stanford would have played so conservatively on offense in the 2nd half if Oregon would have scored a TD sooner? :salute:
Oregon lost because of their defense, not their offense.
KingNick865
THE #1 COLLEGE DIFFENCE
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2008
- Messages
- 14,070
- Likes
- 0
VN Store
